ArticleThe British journal of radiology2021
Quantifying MRI
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrafast Blood TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Using flow ratio of peritumoral artery/renal aorta from DSA imaging to predict high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Surrogate vascular input function measurements from the superior sagittal sinus are repeatable and provide tissue-validated kinetic parameters in brain DCE-MRI.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the feasibility of accurately quantifying the concentration of MRI contrast agent in flowing blood by measuring its T1 in a large vessel. Such measures are often used to obtain patient-specific arterial input functions for the accurate fitting of pharmacokinetic models to dynamic contrast enhanced MRI data. Flow is known to produce errors with this technique, but these have so far been poorly quantified and characterised in the context of pulsatile flow with a rapidly changing T1 as would be expected
methodsA phantom was developed which used a mechanical pump to pass fluid at physiologically relevant rates. Measurements of T
resultsThe relationship between measured T1 values and flow velocity was found to be non-linear. The subsequent error in quantification of contrast agent concentration in a measured AIF was shown.
conclusionsThe T1 measurement of flowing blood using standard DCE- MRI sequences are subject to large measurement errors which are non-linear in relation to flow velocity. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This work qualitatively and quantitatively demonstrates the difficulties of accurately measuring the T1 of flowing blood using DCE-MRI over a wide range of physiologically realistic flow velocities and pulsatilities. Sources of error are identified and proposals made to reduce these.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.